That does not somehow make anything better. I'm not sure what you were trying to say there?

No, it absolutely does not make anything "better". It just adds to the evidence that (in my mind) accumulates to demonstrate Abrahamic religions
having an undeniable history of warfare and hatred amongst themselves. For, what - 2000 years now? And also, FOR WHAT?

Absurd.

But, like I've said before - we're trying, but human progress is a painfully SLOW process.

That does not somehow make anything better. I'm not sure what you were trying to say there?

No, it absolutely does not make anything "better". It just adds to the evidence that (in my mind) accumulates to demonstrate Abrahamic religions
having an undeniable history of warfare and hatred amongst themselves. For, what - 2000 years now? And also, FOR WHAT?

Absurd.

But, like I've said before - we're trying, but human progress is a painfully SLOW process.

The Abrahamic traditions ALL have laws against injustice and oppression.

Individual sociopaths, or those that ally with other sociopaths and disobey the laws of the Abrahamic faiths are not representative of the 'labels'
they use.

You do know that people claiming to be Buddhists, Sikh, Druze, Rastafarians, Voodoo, Mandaeans, Jains, Shinto, Pagans, Taoists, Hindus, Wiccans and
Zoroastrians have persecuted those of other faiths?

If there weren't so much hate, I imagine that this thread would have died 12 pages ago.

Just sayin'

Yeah -

just sayin'. The reason it's not dead is because people who've been accused of being "haters" are protesting and trying to express themselves.
It's the ones who think that others "hate Christians" who keep it going, despite the claims and clarifications of those who are "accused" of
being haters that they, in fact, arent "haters" (as labelled).

Yep. But that's hardly reason to expound the continuation of divisive "religious ideation". None of them are "better" than the others, or
"more right" than the others (of course, I'm not speaking of sociopaths/psychopaths, who respect no one).

And you have aided me quite well in making my point about Christophobia.

When you said Christians think, you are referring to ALL Christians by default, and yes I take it quite personally.

I am simply defending my right not be be slandered because of my religion.
Not to have rampant bigotry and prejudice thrown at me because of my religion.

Why does the argument always devolve into idiotic semantics?

When I say "people think xxxx," it's implied that I don't mean EVERY person EVERY WHERE.

Why is it that SOME Christians feel the need to pounce on that part of a person's statement in an effort to discredit the argument instead of just
admitting "you're right, some Christians do think that"? It makes you look like you can't counter the argument with a decent response so you
resort to nitpicking the grammar.

These discussions always turn into "You said 'Christians think' instead of 'most Christians think' and that makes your statement wrong because
I'm an exception to the rule durpadurp!"

It happens in every single thread that devolves into a religious debate (which, regrettably, seems to be most of them).

The simple answer is that words mean things and sweeping generalizations are rarely helpful in any discussion. Let me give you a totally
non-religious example...

I own a pit bull and have for the last 10 years. It is not uncommon for people to make statements along the lines of, "Pit bull owners just a bunch
of drug dealers and thugs." Now, there are sadly many people who own pit bulls that fit this description. However, there of tons of pit bull owners
who are responsible, law abiding citizens doing their best to not only do right by their own dogs, but by the breed at large. Therefore, when I hear
someone make a statement like the one above, I'm on them like white on rice because not only is that a slap in the face of those that work so hard to
do right by by the breed, but it has a discrediting effect the group as a whole, because after all who cares what a bunch of thugs say.

When you say "people are xyz" it's different, because you are talking about humans as a whole, not singling out one particular group of humans for
generalization. Take the two statements, "People are violent" and "Black people are violent." There is only one word difference in that
statement but that difference makes all the difference. Why? because you are dealing with human kind as a whole vs a particular group of humans.

I am a Christian who a is huge supporter of gay marriage. In fact, marriage equality is such a big deal to me that it is one of the key aspects I
look for in a political candidate. As a Hoosier (and someone who lives about a half hour away from the now infamous pizza shop) I was so incredibly
ashamed when Pence signed the "religious freedom" and was one of the many residents (Christian and otherwise), who spoke out against it. So yes,
when someone says that Christians are anti-gay bigots it gets to me. Not only is this statement NOT true in many cases but it helps create an us vs
them environment, which only pushes the discussion further off the rails.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.